Question: According to Rebbi's explanation of R. Yonason, we have a source for (a second Misah unnoticeable on the body, i.e.) choking;

However, according to R. Yoshiyah, what is the source that choking is one of the Misos Beis Din? ("Mos Yumas" should refer to the lightest of the three explicit in the Torah, i.e. beheading!)

Answer (Rava): A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that there are four Misos Beis Din.

Question: Why did R. Yonason say 'even though it is not the lightest'?

Answer: He and R. Yoshiyah argue like Chachamim and R. Shimon. R. Yonason holds that beheading is lightest, like R. Shimon.

Question (R. Zeira): Most transgressions punishable by stoning do not say this explicitly, we learn from (one who conjures up the dead with) Ov or Yid'oni;

Which Gezerah Shavah do we learn from - "Mos Yumasu- Mos Yumasu", or "Demeihem Bam-Demeihem Bam"?

Answer (Abaye): We learn from (the Gezerah Shavah of) "Demeihem". If we would learn from that of "Mos Yumasu", what would we learn from "Demeihem"?

Question: If we learn from "Demeihem", what do we learn from "Mos Yumasu"?

Answer (Beraisa) Question: Perhaps "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu" teaches that we can kill a murderer only with the proper Misah (beheading). What is the source to kill him any other way if we cannot give the proper Misah?

Answer: "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh" - the verb is doubled to teach this.

Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): What difficulty did R. Zeira foresee if we would learn from "Mos Yumasu"?

Suggestion: He thought that we should learn that adulterers (about whom it says "Mos Yumasu") are stoned (even if she is Nesu'ah, but the Halachah is, they are choked).

Rejection: Since the Torah teaches that a Na'arah Me'orasah is stoned, we cannot say that a Nesu'ah is also stoned (if so, there was no need to teach stoning regarding a Na'arah Me'orasah. Also this is adultery!)

Suggestion: He thought that we should learn that one who wounds a parent (about which it says "Mos Yumas") is stoned (but the Halachah is, he is choked).

Rejection: Since we can learn "Mos Yumasu" from adultery (with a Nesu'ah, punishable by choking), surely we learn (choking,) the lighter Misah!

Answer (Ravina): It was difficult to him, how would we learn the other cases of stoning (from "Mos Yumas" from Ov and Yid'oni)? Since we can learn "Mos Yumasu" from adultery (with a Nesu'ah), we should learn (choking,) the lighter Misah!

(Mishnah): The following are stoned:

A man who had Bi'ah with his mother (unless specified, the woman always gets the same Misah as the man), his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, another man, or an animal, and a woman who had Bi'ah with an animal;

A blasphemer, an idolater, one who gives from his seed to Molech, one who conjures up the dead with Ov or Yid'oni, one who is Mechalel Shabbos, one who curses a parent, one who has Bi'ah with a Na'arah Me'orasah, one who entices (an individual) to serve idolatry, one who entices a city to serve idolatry, a witch, and a Ben Sorer u'Moreh.

If one had Bi'ah with his mother and she is his father's wife, he is liable for both transgressions (this will be explained);

R. Yehudah says, he is liable only for Bi'ah with his mother.

If one had Bi'ah with his father's wife, he is liable for this and (if she is currently married) for adultery with a married woman, whether or not his father is alive, whether she was Arusah or Nesu'ah to his father;

If one had Bi'ah with his daughter-in-law, he is liable for this and (if she is currently married) for adultery with a married woman, whether or not his son is alive, whether she was Arusah or Nesu'ah to his son.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If his mother was unfit to marry his father, he is liable only for Bi'ah with his mother. (This argues with the Tana of our Mishnah, who says that R. Yehudah never obligates for both.)

Question: What does it mean 'if she was unfit to marry his father'?

Suggestion: She was forbidden to him by a transgression of Kares or Misah.

Rejection: If so, Chachamim would agree, for she cannot have Kidushin with his father!

Answer: She was forbidden to him by a Lav. R. Yehudah holds like R. Akiva, who says that there cannot be Kidushin with Chayavei Lavin.

Question (R. Oshiya - Mishnah): If a Yevamah falls to a Yavam forbidden to her due to Mitzvah or Kedushah (these will be explained), she does Chalitzah, and not Yibum;

'Mitzvah' refers to Sheniyos (Arayos mid'Rabanan). They are called (Isurim of) Mitzvah, because it is a Mitzvah to obey Chachamim (who decreed about them):

'Kedushah' refers to Isurim of Kohanim (a widow married to a Kohen Gadol, a divorcee or Chalutzah married a regular Kohen). They are called Kedushah because it says about Kohanim "Kedoshim Yihyu."

(Beraisa): R. Yehudah switches these. ('Mitzvah' refers to Isurim of Kohanim, for it says at the end of Sefer Vayikra (which contains these Isurim) "Elu ha'Mitzvos." 'Kedushah' refers to Sheniyos mid'Rabanan, for one grows in Kedushah by refraining from matters that the Torah permitted.)

Summation of question: R. Yehudah agrees that Chalitzah is required for Chayavei Lavin of Kohanim. If he held that there is no Kidushin with Chayavei Lavin, they would be like Chayavei Kares, and there would be no need for Chalitzah!

Answer: R. Yehudah came to argue with Chachamim only about their terminology (what should be called Isurim of Mitzvah and Kedushah). He argues also about Chalitzah of Chayavei Lavin, but he did not mention this.

(R. Yitzchak - Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (In all cases) he is liable only for Bi'ah with his mother. (This is like our Mishnah.)

Question: What is his reason?

Answer #1 (Abaye): "Imcha Hi" - one (who had Bi'ah with his mother) is liable only for his mother, but not for his father's wife.

Objection #1: If so, we should also expound "Ervas Eshes Avicha... Ervas Avicha Hi" to teach that one who had Bi'ah with his father's wife is liable only for his father's wife, but not for his mother!

From these two verses, one would not be liable for Bi'ah with his mother if she was married to his father, but he would be liable if she was never married to him, or for Bi'ah with a wife of his father who is not his mother!

Objection #2: Why don't Chachamim expound similarly?

Rather, they expound "Imcha Hi" as Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi does (below, 54a). Also R. Yehudah needs it for Rav Shisha's law!

Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): "Ervasah" (singular) - you are liable only for one Ervah (even if she is forbidden to you for two reasons).

Objection: If so, we should expound also "Ervas Kalascha... Eshes Bincha Hi Lo Segale Ervasah" to teach that you are liable only for one Ervah;

(Mishnah): One who had Bi'ah with his daughter-in- law is liable for his daughter-in-law and (if she is married) for Bi'ah with a married woman.

R. Yehudah does not argue!

Rather, we must say that because she is one person, the singular 'Ervasah' applies, even though one is liable twice. The same applies to "Ervasah" in the verse "Imcha Hi"!

Answer #3 (Rava): R. Yehudah holds that "Ervas Avicha" (earlier in the verse "Imcha Hi") refers to your father's wife (we learn from a Gezerah Shavah to "Ervas Eshes Avicha... Ervas Avicha Hi"), it teaches that you are liable for her whether or not she is your mother.

Question: What is the source for his mother if she is not his father's wife?

Answer: "Ervas Imcha Lo Segale Imcha Hi" - (if she is also your father's wife) you are liable for Bi'ah with your mother, and not for Bi'ah with your father's wife.